China trade war? These U.S. companies are in the crosshairs

President
Donald Trump’s tough talk on trade with China, including threats of
punitive tariffs and accusations of illegal currency manipulation, is
bringing long-simmering tensions between the world’s two largest
economies to a boil. And that could have ramifications for many U.S.
companies.
About a dozen Fortune 500 companies rely on China for more than 50 percent of their annual sales, per a recent Morgan Stanley (MS) report to clients. Semiconductor maker Ambarella (AMBA) gets 90 percent of its revenue from China, and other tech firms, such as Marvell (MRVL) and Qualcomm (QCOM), get more than 50 percent of their sales from the world’s most populous country.

Some of the U.S.’ biggest companies make significant profits in China

CBS MoneyWatch/Irina Ivanova

China also looms large for Apple (AAPL).
The nation has surpassed the U.S. as the biggest iPhone market. It also
is a big revenue-generator for casino operators such Las Vegas Sands (LSV) and Wynn Resorts (WYNN), which have invested heavily in the Macao gaming market in recent years.
Boeing (BA)
is expecting big things from China, predicting last year that the
country would need $1 trillion worth of aircraft over the next two
decades. General Electric (GE) also is eager to expand its foothold in China and is partnering with companies there to expand into other emerging markets.
U.S. farmers also depend on China, which is now the second-largest market for American agricultural exports, worth $20.2 billion as of 2015.
Mr.
Trump this week scrapped the 11-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
trade agreement that his predecessor Barack Obama negotiated. It didn’t
include China as a member and was at least partially aimed at stemming
China’s rising economic power across Asia-Pacific.

The new president’s anti-TPP move was expected because he had
criticized the deal during the campaign. Killing the TPP, though, could
have unintended consequences. Economists at research firm Capital
Economics argue that Mr. Trump’s decision “created an opportunity for
China to expand its influence in Asia.”
Since winning the
election, trade isn’t the only area in which Mr. Trump has ratcheted up
his war of words with Beijing. In early December, he spoke with
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and signaled he might abandon the
decades-long “One China” policy, which views Taiwan as a “renegade
province” of China. He also has joined the international condemnation of
China’s island-building in international waters in the South China Sea.
“Neither
side wants a trade war, but there is a risk of escalation from these
trade disputes,” said Michael Hirson, Asia director for the Eurasia
Group. “There also is a risk if President Trump presses China on some of
these very sensitive security issues like support for Taiwan and
territorial disputes in the South China Sea.”
Should trade
tensions escalate, China and the U.S. likely would target specific
industries using tools like filing complaints with the International
Trade Commission alleging unfair government subsidies. Competitors to
U.S. companies, such as Boeing’s European rival Airbus, could benefit as
might other national players in the agricultural market, such as
Australia and Canada.
“China may retaliate by saying ‘I will not
import as many soybeans from the United States,’” said Yukon Huang of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “I will no longer allow
Apple to operate here and use China as the base of assembly and exports.
I will buy Airbus planes rather than Boeing planes. I will no longer
buy turbine engines and nuclear power plants from General Electric.”

U.S. companies were already feeling uncomfortable in China. A recent survey released
by the Chinese-American Chamber of Commerce found that 81 percent of
respondents felt less welcome in China, and another 55 percent found
that foreign companies were treated worse there than local ones.
“Getting
anything done in China or exporting to China requires various
approvals,” said Hirson, formerly the Treasury Department’s top official
in Beijing. “Given there is no real separation between the Communist
Party and the regulatory regime, it’s quite easy for the government to
put regulatory pressure on American firms.”
Even much closer to home, trade is a flashpoint for Mr. Trump. On Thursday, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto canceled a planned visit
to the White House amid the dustup over President Trump’s plans for a
multibillion-dollar wall on the U.S. Southern border (and add a 20
percent import tax on Mexican goods to pay for it) in addition to his
intention to renegotiate or scrap the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
In a recent interview with CBS Morning News, FedEx (FDX) CEO Fred Smith called on Mr. Trump to “rethink” his trade positions.
Smith noted that the average American family benefits from trade “to
the tune of about $13,000 in lower-price goods than would otherwise be
the case.”
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström described President Trump’s tougher policies on trade and immigration as “doomed to fail.”
For now, though, his “America First” vow is carrying the day.

The March for Life And the Anti-Trump Women s March: A Study In Contrasts

By Michael Brown/Ask Dr BrownJanuary 30, 2017
Share this article:

I'm writing this article on the eve of the 44th annual March for
Life, but I can tell you in advance how it will differ dramatically from
the recent Women's March, organized in protest of the inauguration of
President Trump.

First, the media coverage of the events will be totally different.

Whereas
the Women's March was in the mainstream media's spotlight, the March
for Life will be a mere footnote for most mainstream outlets, regardless
of how many people attend.

The fact that Vice
President Pence will be speaking at the event - the first time a vice
president has done so - might get some attention, but comparatively, the
coverage of the Women's March will dwarf the coverage of the March for
Life.

Not only so, but there's a good chance
that those protesting the March for Life - always a miniscule number in
comparison to the overall crowd - will get just as much media attention
as the participants and the speakers, thereby giving a totally skewed
impression to viewers and readers.

Second, the spirit of the events will be totally different.

Despite
the deep conviction of pro-lifers that we have witnessed an abortion
holocaust, there will be no calls to burn down or blow up abortion
clinics (contrast Madonna's thoughts about blowing up the White House
while speaking at the Women's March), nor will there be vulgar and
obscene attacks on individuals (contrast Ashley Judd's truly deplorable
comments).

There will be nothing in the
pro-life speeches that will incite people to violence or hatred.
Instead, there will be an appeal for life - life for the most innocent
and unprotected citizens of our society - and a call to honor life.

And
if my surmises are correct, the streets of DC will not be littered with
signs and objects from the March for Life, in contrast with the litter
left behind by the Women's March.

Third, the ideology of the events will be totally different.

Among
the March for Life participants, you will not see signs with messages
like this one, from the Women's March, proclaiming, "My menstrual blood
will flow through the streets fighting for women of all genders," nor
will you hear from radical feminists like Aida Hurtado and Gloria
Steinem, extreme media leftists like filmmaker Michael Moore and CNN
commentator Van Jones, transgender activists like Janet Mock and Raquel
Willis, or women like Donna Hylton, who spent 27 years in prison for her
role in the brutal kidnaping, torture and murder of a man. All of these
were listed as speakers at the Women's March.

To
sample some of the best-known quotes of Hurtado, "White men need white
women in a way that they do not need women of Color because women of
Color cannot fulfill white men's need for racially pure offspring."

And,
"White men perceive women of Color primarily as workers and as objects
of sexual power and aggression. Their sexual objectification of women of
Color allows white men to express power and aggression sexually,
without the emotional entanglements of, the rituals that are required
in, relationships with women of their own group."

This is the kind of divisive identity politics that will be absent from the March for Life.

As
for Hylton, her message at the march was one of solidarity with female
prisoners of color, wanting to tell their story to the world, and I'm
sure it's a story we need to hear.

Regrettably,
she spoke not a word of her horrific past - not a word of remorse to
say, "I was justly incarcerated for my actions, which I deeply regret
and categorically renounce" - but only a word of solidarity with "all of
those women who have been overlooked, marginalized, sexualized,
dehumanized and silenced."

Her failure to renounce her past horrific deeds makes it difficult to hear the positive message she sought to bring.

Contrast that with the spirit of the late Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, a founding father of NARAL known affectionately by his
colleagues as the "abortion king," responsible for 75,000 abortions (by
his own estimate), but who experienced a radical change of heart after
watching an ultrasound of an abortion and became a pro-life icon.

Dr.
Nathanson spoke at the 25th March for Life in 1998, and you can be sure
his message always included the renouncing of his past sins.

And that, perhaps, will be the greatest contrast between the Women's March and the March for Life.

While
the former certainly had some redemptive content, along with genuine
concern about our new president, in no way was its overarching theme one
of redemption or life or hope or even dignity. (In reality, many
aspects of the Women's March were downright degrading to women.)

In stark contrast, the great theme of the March for Life will be one of redemption and life and hope and dignity.

Watch and see.

By
the time many of you read this article, the 44th annual March for Life,
along with the coverage of it by the media, will be history.

The War On Cash - EU Now Pushing "Restrictions On Payments In Cash"

In the most far-reaching move toward a cashless society to date,
the European Commission proposed enforcing "restrictions on payments in
cash" under an all-too-familiar premise -- because terrorism.

"Payments
in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities," the
Commission's proposal states. "In this context, the relevance of
potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several
Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a
specific threshold."

On the heels of the
European Central Bank's discontinuation of the ¬500 note, the
Commission's plan would drastically scale back civilians' ability to
conduct transactions using currency -- and, by default, will allow banks
and the State further means to track individuals via bank cards.

According to the Commission's Inception Impact Assessment,

Cash
has the important feature of offering anonymity to transactions. Such
anonymity may be desired for legitimate reason (e.g. protection of
privacy).

But, such anonymity can also be
misused for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. The
possibility to conduct large cash payments facilitates money laundering
and terrorist financing activities because of the difficulty to control
cash payment transactions.

In other words, because criminals and terrorists use
paper currency, the ability for law-abiding citizens to conduct
anonymous transactions with cash must be curtailed.

For
any number of reasons -- not the least of which is the laughable
presumption terrorists would just walk into a store and purchase big
ticket tools of the trade -- this assessment fails the sniff test.

In
actuality, moving away from the use of physical currency constitutes a
veritable jackpot for the West's Surveillance State, and presents myriad
possibilities for abuse by the European Commission and member
governments.

How long will it be, after all, before such restrictions extend to transactions of lesser sums?

"Potential
restrictions to cash payments would be a means to fight criminal
activities entailing large payment transactions in cash by organised
criminal networks," the plan states.

"Restricting
large payments in cash, in addition to cash declarations and other AML
obligations, would hamper the operation of terrorist networks, and other
criminal activities, i.e. have a preventive effect.

It would also facilitate further investigations to track financial transactions in the course of terrorist activities."

Notably,
though the proposal repeatedly proffers the preventive effect made
possible through prohibitions on large cash transactions, evidence
supporting that theory is glaringly absent. It continues:

However, as cash transactions
are moved to the financial system, it is essential that financial
institutions have adequate controls and procedures in place that enable
them to know the person with whom they are dealing.

Adequate
due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these
controls in, line with the AMLD [Anti-Money Laundering Directive].

Terrorists
use cash to sustain their illegal activities, not only for illegal
transactions (e.g. the acquisition of explosives) but also for payments
which are in appearance legal (e.g. transactions for accommodation or
transport).

While a restriction on payments in
cash would certainly be ignored for transactions that are in any case
already illegal, the restriction could create a significant hindrance to
the conduct of transactions that are ancillary to terrorist activities.

The
Commission's own language evinces a degree of doubt as to whether such a
plan would work, saying only "the restriction could create a
significant hindrance" to terrorist operations.

Indeed,
as pointed out by Sovereign Man's, Simon Black, restricting large-sum
cash dealings might have the opposite effect on crime:

If
you examine countries with very low denominations of cash, the opposite
holds true: crime rates, and in particular organized crime rates, are
extremely high.

Consider Venezuela, Nigeria,
Brazil, South Africa, etc. Organized crime is prevalent. Yet each of
these has a currency whose maximum denomination is less than $30.

The same trend holds true when looking at corruption and tax evasion.

Yet the European Commission still asserts, "Organised
crime and terrorism financing rely on cash for payments for carrying out
their illegal activities and benefitting from them.

By
restricting the possibilities to use cash, the proposal would
contribute to disrupt the financing of terrorism, as the need to use non
anonymous means of payment would either deter the activity or
contribute to its easier detection and investigation."

Perhaps
the most astonishing and erroneous assumption in the plan is that
terrorists and criminals will suddenly abide the law -- as if malicious
groups would surmise, 'Well, large cash transactions aren't possible, so
I guess we'll have to find another line of work.'

Black
presents several examples of countries who have taken the leap away
from paper currency only to be hit with soaring crime rates.

In
short, banning or severely limiting paper currency is ineffective at
what governments claim such programs are intended to do, as Black
continues,

Bottom line, the political and
financial establishments want you to willingly get on board with the
idea of abolishing, or at least reducing, cash...

Simply
put, the data doesn't support their assertion. It's just another hoax
that will give them more power at the expense of your privacy and
freedom.

Freedom to spend, as one desires, on
what one chooses comprises such a basic right, governments have had to
propagate a massive campaign to conflate physical money with the
criminal element -- because the reality is, everyone uses paper currency
-- even if the Commission disagrees:

While
being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right,
the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that
cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to
privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
[...]

It should also be observed that national
restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based
on an infringement to fundamental rights.

It
might seem convenient to gradually abolish paper currency in favor of,
for instance, a bank or other card for all transactions, but the brutal
truth of a cashless society is the heaviest hand of the State in our
private lives.

Hold onto your hats, folks, the leaders of the
Revolution, the George Soros paid-for Obama and Clinton,
Democrat-mounted cabal are about to prove they are just as dangerous out
of office as they are, in office

Get Ready for the ‘Donald Trump’s fault Terrorism Revolution’

Update: Police now say 1 shooter and charge Alexandre Bissonnette (See Below)
This is what the majority of the left swinging American and Canadian mainstream media want you to believe: last night’s gun massacre on the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center
leaving six dead and eight injured—the one Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau calls a ‘terrorist attack on Muslims”— is President Donald
Trump’s fault.
This should be seen as the best way for the mainstream media to keep anti-Trump protesters out screaming on city streets.
That’s
the world a conniving mainstream media in sync with the progressive
left has created for average citizens who dare to think for themselves.

Make no mistake about where this is all headed.
Anyone
who doesn’t buy into the lib-left’s ‘terrorist-attack-on-Muslims
-and-it’s-Donald-Trump’s—fault’ runs the risk of being sucker punched on
their way up the street; have their hair set afire if suspected of
being in any way pro-Trump; or have their reputation torn to shreds as a
racist, Islamophobe or homophobe by the social media of the current
day.“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama told House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.
Elections
have consequences and the consequence of the one that resulted in the
election of non-progressive Donald Trump on November 8, 2016 is that the
global elitist supported progressive left are still in charge even if
people have to die to prove their point. They want the masses to know
that It is impossible for them to lose control—in or out of office—and
what they are now doing in Canada and the U.S. proves it.
Two men
arrested in the Trudeau-described “terrorist attack on Muslims” will
appear in court later this morning when the world will be let in on
knowing their names

“Witnesses claimed the masked killers
shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ in what sounded like a Quebecois accent as they
went on the rampage, killing six and leaving eight injured.(DailyMail, Jan. 30, 2017)

“Police
have since arrested two people - understood to be students from
Quebec’s Université Laval - but the investigation is ongoing. One
suspect was detained at the mosque and the other was caught after a
chase that ended near l’île d’Orléans around 15 miles from the scene.”

We
don’t know the motivation of the so far alleged suspects students
Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir. who have been arrested. (Daily Mail)
But
we do know that before anyone could catch their next breath that Commie
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was blaming the attack on the
divisiveness of President Donald Trump’ ban on Immigration, and that
Hillary Rodham Clinton came screaming out of her silence to comment on
Trump’s immigration order.
We also know that almost every single
media outlet is already blaming Donald Trump for the horrendous mosque
attack in Quebec City.
The timeline leading up to the attack is at least disconcerting.
On
January 27th, President Donald Trump issued his immigration ban, on
refugees and immigrants from terrorist prone nations. At 3:20 p.m., on
January 28, Prime Minister Trudeau sent a Twitter to the world stating:
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome
you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength
#WelcomeToCanada”

Some say there’s “no such thing as coincidence”. Make of it what you will.
With
help from socialist France and Germany, North America has entered a
Stealth Revolution that teaches the easily taught inane to pump their
fists into the air while shouting: “Viva la Revolución!”
The 2
million strong Women’s March may have hit city streets the day after
Trump’s inauguration but the revolution had been festering and was being
nurtured long before.
Common sense dictates that even with copious George Soros money poured into them. revolutions cannot be mounted overnight.
Their Hate Trump Movement has been scattered far and wide.
But
even with the majority of mainstream media now fomenting for
revolution, there are small pinpoints of light from the few unsuppressed
truth tellers:
“It feels like the marches and protests are
everywhere, and have been since President Donald Trump took office a
little over a week ago. For some reason, the progressive left,
undoubtedly the organizers of these events, wants the public to believe
these gatherings are organically springing up, born of the natural
outrage over Trump’s recent executive orders and, frankly, the fact of
Trump himself. But nothing could be further from the truth. (The Blaze, Jan. 29, 2017)

“The
Women’s March in Washington, D.C., and other cities across the country,
happened the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated 45th President of
the United States and was openly a protest. The protests against Trump’s
executive order, which halted travel into the U.S. from a number of
Muslim-majority countries, are explicitly protests and have been
happening in cities around the country, including New York (where it
began), Washington and Chicago.
“And there are more to come, with
the Science March already being organized and a number of others
reportedly on the horizon. In fact, a site called Bustle offers a handy
primer on five protests/marches that “need your help to organize,”
including the Immigrants March (slated for May 6) and the Trump Taxes
March (to be held, of course, April 15).
“And yet, mainstream news
outlets for some odd reason are trying to push the idea that these are
organic gatherings that spring up quickly and are not centrally
organized.
“The New York Times, for example, ran a piece when the
protest began at John F. Kennedy airport in New York after immigrants
coming back into the country were detained. Their headline? “Protest
Grows ‘Out of Nowhere’ at Kennedy Airport After Iraqis Detained.”

The
unvarnished truth will always be that it was “out of nowhere” that
Barack Hussein Obama arrived on the scene, and out of a deadly
“somewhere” where the revolutionaries of the day are being stoked.
Ironically, in retrospect, it was never Donald Trump that shouldn’t have been taken seriously, but Obama who never really was.
Meanwhile,
we can hold out for the hope that Obama’s lightweight replacement
Justin Trudeau is at best, a puppet dangling at the end of the
progressive left’s string.
Hold onto your hats, folks, the leaders
of the Revolution, the George Soros paid-for Obama and Clinton,
Democrat-mounted cabal are about to prove they are just as dangerous out
of office as they are, in office.Update:

Quebec mosque shooting: update on the police operation

The
suspect in a fatal attack in a Quebec mosque that killed six people and
seriously injured another five was charged with first-degree murder and
attempted murder charges in Quebec City late Monday afternoon.
Police
first believed two people were involved in Sunday’s terror attack at
the Centre Cultural Islamique de Quebec in Quebec City’s Ste-Foy
neighbourhood. However, one of the men arrested near the mosque was a
witness who reportedly fled the scene in the midst of the police
operation.
The suspect in the fatal event is Alexandre Bissonnette, a Université Laval student. More ...

Move on, snowflakes. The rest of America already has.

Media hysteria designed to sow fear and division

When irresponsible reporting is combined with irrational reactions, it instills fear and confusion in people’s minds. That’s what the liberal media are doing to some people, because both are still stuck in a state of bitterness.
Irresponsible
reporting nowadays is well recognized as media bias. Some reporters and
news outlets will slant the news, omit parts of a story or flat-out lie
to make the story fit the political narrative they want to present.

The best example is the report that President Trump removed the bust of MLK from his Oval Office. It never happened!
The
reporter retracted it later after sending it to more thn 3,000
colleagues. The retraction was not a big headline like the original
story. And of course, it was in small print on the inside page of what
was equivalent to the comic section of the newspaper, or embedded in the
last paragraph of some other unrelated commentary.
He or she or
they were trying to promote the narrative that President Trump is a
racist. He is not, and the liberal media got busted.
An irrational
reaction by the media is when they consciously try to turn a mole hill
into a mountain. Consider the example of when the media “wet its pants”
because President Trump would not wave to them when he boarded Air Force
One for the first time.
Maybe he was deep in thought. Maybe he
didn’t get the memo! But the media elites thought he did it on purpose
to snub them. Maybe he did! Who cares?

If these media snowflakes are going to
react like this for something insignificant, I don’t think many people
will want their perspective on important stuff. Just report the truth
and all of the facts.
After only a week in office as president of
the United States, it is clear that the liberal media are in a state of
hysteria over everything President Trump says, does, insinuates or even
contemplates so they can use it to promote fear, confusion and their
presumptive political narrative.
The good news is that most people
are not falling for the liberal media’s irresponsible and irrational
reporting. They are not stupid!
The liberal media are in a hole and they won’t stop digging.
The people stopped digging and elected Donald Trump president.
Let’s move on, snowflakes.

Hold onto your hats, folks, the leaders of the
Revolution, the George Soros paid-for Obama and Clinton,
Democrat-mounted cabal are about to prove they are just as dangerous out
of office as they are, in office

Get Ready for the ‘Donald Trump’s fault Terrorism Revolution’

Update: Police now say 1 shooter and charge Alexandre Bissonnette (See Below)
This is what the majority of the left swinging American and Canadian mainstream media want you to believe: last night’s gun massacre on the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center
leaving six dead and eight injured—the one Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau calls a ‘terrorist attack on Muslims”— is President Donald
Trump’s fault.
This should be seen as the best way for the mainstream media to keep anti-Trump protesters out screaming on city streets.
That’s
the world a conniving mainstream media in sync with the progressive
left has created for average citizens who dare to think for themselves.

Make no mistake about where this is all headed.
Anyone
who doesn’t buy into the lib-left’s ‘terrorist-attack-on-Muslims
-and-it’s-Donald-Trump’s—fault’ runs the risk of being sucker punched on
their way up the street; have their hair set afire if suspected of
being in any way pro-Trump; or have their reputation torn to shreds as a
racist, Islamophobe or homophobe by the social media of the current
day.“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama told House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.
Elections
have consequences and the consequence of the one that resulted in the
election of non-progressive Donald Trump on November 8, 2016 is that the
global elitist supported progressive left are still in charge even if
people have to die to prove their point. They want the masses to know
that It is impossible for them to lose control—in or out of office—and
what they are now doing in Canada and the U.S. proves it.
Two men
arrested in the Trudeau-described “terrorist attack on Muslims” will
appear in court later this morning when the world will be let in on
knowing their names

“Witnesses claimed the masked killers
shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ in what sounded like a Quebecois accent as they
went on the rampage, killing six and leaving eight injured.(DailyMail, Jan. 30, 2017)

“Police
have since arrested two people - understood to be students from
Quebec’s Université Laval - but the investigation is ongoing. One
suspect was detained at the mosque and the other was caught after a
chase that ended near l’île d’Orléans around 15 miles from the scene.”

We
don’t know the motivation of the so far alleged suspects students
Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir. who have been arrested. (Daily Mail)
But
we do know that before anyone could catch their next breath that Commie
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was blaming the attack on the
divisiveness of President Donald Trump’ ban on Immigration, and that
Hillary Rodham Clinton came screaming out of her silence to comment on
Trump’s immigration order.
We also know that almost every single
media outlet is already blaming Donald Trump for the horrendous mosque
attack in Quebec City.
The timeline leading up to the attack is at least disconcerting.
On
January 27th, President Donald Trump issued his immigration ban, on
refugees and immigrants from terrorist prone nations. At 3:20 p.m., on
January 28, Prime Minister Trudeau sent a Twitter to the world stating:
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome
you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength
#WelcomeToCanada”

Some say there’s “no such thing as coincidence”. Make of it what you will.
With
help from socialist France and Germany, North America has entered a
Stealth Revolution that teaches the easily taught inane to pump their
fists into the air while shouting: “Viva la Revolución!”
The 2
million strong Women’s March may have hit city streets the day after
Trump’s inauguration but the revolution had been festering and was being
nurtured long before.
Common sense dictates that even with copious George Soros money poured into them. revolutions cannot be mounted overnight.
Their Hate Trump Movement has been scattered far and wide.
But
even with the majority of mainstream media now fomenting for
revolution, there are small pinpoints of light from the few unsuppressed
truth tellers:
“It feels like the marches and protests are
everywhere, and have been since President Donald Trump took office a
little over a week ago. For some reason, the progressive left,
undoubtedly the organizers of these events, wants the public to believe
these gatherings are organically springing up, born of the natural
outrage over Trump’s recent executive orders and, frankly, the fact of
Trump himself. But nothing could be further from the truth. (The Blaze, Jan. 29, 2017)

“The
Women’s March in Washington, D.C., and other cities across the country,
happened the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated 45th President of
the United States and was openly a protest. The protests against Trump’s
executive order, which halted travel into the U.S. from a number of
Muslim-majority countries, are explicitly protests and have been
happening in cities around the country, including New York (where it
began), Washington and Chicago.
“And there are more to come, with
the Science March already being organized and a number of others
reportedly on the horizon. In fact, a site called Bustle offers a handy
primer on five protests/marches that “need your help to organize,”
including the Immigrants March (slated for May 6) and the Trump Taxes
March (to be held, of course, April 15).
“And yet, mainstream news
outlets for some odd reason are trying to push the idea that these are
organic gatherings that spring up quickly and are not centrally
organized.
“The New York Times, for example, ran a piece when the
protest began at John F. Kennedy airport in New York after immigrants
coming back into the country were detained. Their headline? “Protest
Grows ‘Out of Nowhere’ at Kennedy Airport After Iraqis Detained.”

The
unvarnished truth will always be that it was “out of nowhere” that
Barack Hussein Obama arrived on the scene, and out of a deadly
“somewhere” where the revolutionaries of the day are being stoked.
Ironically, in retrospect, it was never Donald Trump that shouldn’t have been taken seriously, but Obama who never really was.
Meanwhile,
we can hold out for the hope that Obama’s lightweight replacement
Justin Trudeau is at best, a puppet dangling at the end of the
progressive left’s string.
Hold onto your hats, folks, the leaders
of the Revolution, the George Soros paid-for Obama and Clinton,
Democrat-mounted cabal are about to prove they are just as dangerous out
of office as they are, in office.Update:

Quebec mosque shooting: update on the police operation

The
suspect in a fatal attack in a Quebec mosque that killed six people and
seriously injured another five was charged with first-degree murder and
attempted murder charges in Quebec City late Monday afternoon.
Police
first believed two people were involved in Sunday’s terror attack at
the Centre Cultural Islamique de Quebec in Quebec City’s Ste-Foy
neighbourhood. However, one of the men arrested near the mosque was a
witness who reportedly fled the scene in the midst of the police
operation.
The suspect in the fatal event is Alexandre Bissonnette, a Université Laval student. More ...

World
events most of which are ‘engineered’ leave a trail that leads to the
architects. We next discover that there are 3 cities on earth that come
under no national authority, they have separate laws, they pay no taxes,
they have their own police force and even possess their own flag of
‘independence’.

Together
they control politicians, the courts, educational institutions, food
supply, natural resources, foreign policies, economies, media, and the
money flow of most nations as well as 80% of the world’s entire wealth.

Their
ultimate aim is to build a totalitarian rule on a global scale where
people will be divided into rulers and the ruled after they have
depopulated the world to numbers they wish to rule over.

What
we need to understand is that the world does not work according to what
we have been led to believe. We are drowning in misinformation.

At the center of each city state are giant phallic shaped stone monuments called obelisks.

London obelisk (aka Cleopatra’s Needle):
Located on the banks of the River Thames, this obelisk was transported
to London and erected in 1878 under the reign of Queen Victoria.

The obelisk originally stood in the Egyptian city of On, or Heliopolis (the City of the Sun).

The
Knights Templars’ land extended to this area of the Thames, where the
Templars had their own docks. Either side of the obelisk is surrounded
by a sphinx, more symbolism dating back to the ancient world.

In D.C. the obelisk is
known as the Washington monument was dedicated to George Washington by
the secretive brotherhood of Freemason Grand Lodge of the District of
Columbia in 1848.

Vatican obelisk: Located in St. Peter’s Square, was moved from Egypt to its current location, in 1586.

The
circle on the ground represents the female vagina, while the obelisk
itself is the penis. This is commonly known as occult symbolism.

The Roman Empire prevails through the:

1. CITY OF LONDON INC

The City of London was formed when the Romans arrived in Great Britain 2000 years ago and started a trading post on the River Thames.

Exactly
1000 years later William the Conqueror (King William III) gave
sovereign status to the City of Londoners in 1694 allowing them to
continue enjoying separate rights and privileges so long as they
recognized him as King.

The
Kings that succeeded William however, decided to build a new capital
city and named it Westminster. There have been numerous instances of the
King and the City’s Mayor at loggerheads with each other.

What is peculiar is that laws passed by the British Parliament does not apply to the City of London.

However the City of London is not an independent nation like the Vatican.

Today
the City of London is a one-square mile city. The 2 Londons have
separate city halls and elect separate mayors, who collect separate
taxes to fund separate police who enforce separate laws.

City
of London has its own separate flag and crest while London city does
not. The Mayor of the City of London has a fancy title ‘The Right
Honourable the Lord Mayor of London’ and rides a golden carriage to
Guildhall while the Mayor of London wears a suit and takes a bus.

The Mayor of London has no power over the Right Honorable Lord Mayor of London (City of London).

What’s
unique is that the City of London is a Corporation and older than the
United Kingdom but has a representative in the UK Parliament through a
person known as the ‘Remembrancer’ who is present to protect the ‘City’s
interests.

The
City of London is controlled by the Bank of England, a private
corporation owned by the Rothschild family after Nathan Rothschild
crashed the English stock market in 1812 and took control of the Bank of
England.

The Queen refers to the City of London Corporation as the ‘Firm’ but it is known as The CROWN (not
representing the Royalty of Britain). Buckingham Palace is in London
but not in the City of London and the City is not part of England.

City
of London directly and indirectly controls all mayors, councils,
regional councils, multi-national and trans-national banks,
corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the
Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF,
World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London
Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States
Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by
eight British-controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in
Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the
Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and the European Union
and the United Nations Organization.

The
Crown controls the global financial system and runs the governments of
all Commonwealth countries, and many non-Commonwealth ‘Western’ nations
as well (like Greece).

The Crown traces back to the Vatican, which is headed by the Pope (who owns American Express).

In essence the City of London Corporation would become the “One World Earth Corporation” and would privately own the world.

2. Washington DC (District of Colombia)

Washington
DC is not part of the USA. District of Columbia is located on 10sq
miles of land. DC has its own flag and own independent constitution.
This constitution operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex
Fori.

DC constitution has nothing to do with the American Constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia.

Thus
DC acts as a Corporation through the Act. The flag of Washington’s
District of Columbia has 3 red stars (the 3 stars denoting DC, Vatican
City and City of London).

A look at the various Treaties raises the question of whether US remains a British Crown colony.

The
basis of this goes back to the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 that
granted Britain the right to colonize America and gave the British
King/Queen to hold sovereign authority over colonized America and its
citizens.

Colonized
America was created after stealing America from the Native Indians. If
America was colonized with British subjects these people are subjects of
the British Government.

To
negate this was the Treaty of 1783 declaring independence from Great
Britain. However, this Treaty identifies the King/Queen of England as
the Prince of the United States. (please refer www.treatyofparis.com)

Nevertheless,
according to the Bouviers Law dictionary in ‘monarchicial governments’ a
subject owes permanent allegiance to the monarch in which case the
British subjects in colonized America owed permanent allegiance to the
monarch.

The
reverse is applicable under Constitutional law where allegiance is owed
to the sovereign and to the laws of a sovereign government and natives
are both subjects and citizens.

The
issue is if a war was fought in 1781 and America became victor why
would Britain need to sign a Treaty in 1783? When US has won a war,
America should not require the British monarch to cede land and refer to
himself as Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States?

There
is also the issue of the use of the term ‘Esquire’ given that it is a
title of nobility again showing allegiance to the Queen/King and when
Benjamin Franklin, John Jay Esquire and John Adams signing on behalf of
the US use the name ‘Esquire’ it is raising the question of how valid
the 1783 Treaty is.

John
Jay went on to sign the 1794 Treaty between England and US raising
again why 13 years after the Paris Treaty the US needs to sign a Treaty
with England if US was really ‘independent’.

What needs to be further investigated is why US still continues to pay tax to the City if it is a free nation?

The 1794 Treaty signed between England and the US was negotiated by John Jay Esquire who negotiated the 1783 Treaty.

The
question is why would US need to sign Treaty’s with England 13 years
after the Paris Treaty of 1783 declaring US independent? Why would
Article 6 and Article 12 continue to dictate terms to an ‘independent’
America?

Further
reading of US history would reveal what happened to America when it
cancelled the Charter of the First National Bank in 1811 and immediately
afterwards 4500 British troops arrived and burnt down the White House,
both Houses of Congress, the War Office, the US State Department and
Treasury and destroyed the ratification records (signed by 12 US states)
of the US Constitution wherein the 13th Amendment was to stop anyone
receiving a Title of nobility or honor from serving the US Government.

The
1812 war lasted 3 years and the Bank Charter was re-established in 1816
after the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815. Note: 13th
amendment which was ratified in 1810 no longer appears in current copies
of the U.S. constitution.

In
1913 the Federal Reserve was passed by US Congress handing over
America’s gold and silver reserves and total control of America’s
economy to the Rothschild banksters.

It
is no better a time to question whether US is a country or a
corporation and the US President and officials at the Congress are
working for that Corporation and not for the American people.

It
appears that the US Corporation is owned by the same country that owns
Canada, Australia and New Zealand whose leaders are all serving the
Queen in her Crown Land and US too has been and remains a crown colony
that belong to the Empire of the 3 City States – City of London, Vatican
City and Washington DC.

The
US president is nothing more than a figurehead for the central bankers
and the transnational corporations — both of which are controlled by
High Ecclesiastic Freemasonry from the City of London the home of the
global financial system.

3. Vatican City

The Vatican City is
not part of Italy or Rome. The Vatican is the last true remnant of the
Roman Empire. The State of Israel is also said to be a Roman outpost.

The
Vatican’s wealth includes investments with the Rothschilds in Britain,
France and US and with oil and weapons corporations as well.

The Vatican’s billions are said to be in Rothschild controlled ‘Bank of England’ and US Federal Reserve Bank.

The
money possessed by the Vatican is more than banks, corporations or even
some Governments and questions why the wealth is not used to elevate at
least the Christian poor when it preaches about giving?

Vatican
wealth has been accumulated over the centuries by taxing indulgences,
some Popes have sold tickets to heaven. Today, they are harvesting souls
in Asia as a 3rd millennium goal.

Together
the 3 Cities have under their wing various societies and groups placed
globally with their own so that no one contests their global plan and
those that do… well all the assassinations will explain what happens.

The
Fabian Society is one such entity which written in 1887 is a mixture of
fascism, Nazism, Marxism and communism. It is not hard to now imagine
that all these ‘ideologies’ would have also been engineered by the same
people.

It
should come as no surprise then to discover that the Fabian Society is
accredited with creating Communist China, Fascism in Italy and Germany
and Socialism globally as well.

How
far people have been fooled and also explains the role played by the
Fabian Society in formulating policies for the decolonized British
Empire.

It
would also mean that quite a number of British educated natives given
the mantle of leading the newly independent nations would have also been
members of the Fabian society.

A closer look at entities like the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS), Internation al Monetary Fund(IMF), Club Of Rome, The Committee Of 300,
the Central ‘Intelligence’ Agency (CIA), the Council On Foreign
Relations, The Tri-Lateral Commission, The Bilderberg Groups, the
‘Federal’ Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service(s), Goldman
Sachs, Israel and the Israeli lobby, the Vatican, the City of London,
Brussels, the United Nations, the Israeli Mossad, and Associated Press
(AP) will reveal that they are all part of the Fabian Society which also
controls the European Union.

A
noteworthy quote is that of Australian Senator Chris Schacht who said
in 2001 “You probably were not aware that us Fabians have taken over the
CIA, KGB, M15, ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization),
IMF, the World Bank and many other organizations.”

From
all this we should realize that NOTHING HAPPENS IN ISOLATION.
Therefore, every event however small is engineered and orchestrated by a
handful of people who control the world and what goes on in the world.

Together, they have been responsible for:

1. Global Warming/Climate change –
by creating an environmental catastrophe and winning the Nobel Prize,
they have created a public awareness for a ‘global government’ that
gives them the right to take action over national governments.

Known as UN Agenda 21 a
closer look at its clauses will reveal how people will need to get
permission for everything they do – in other words it is being used to
control people.

2. Federal Banking system –
The Fabian Society created the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 handing over
the US economy to a cartel of international financiers.

4.
System of local government – promoting devolution and new concept of
regional councils in a bid to increase a revenue generating system. It
is within an overall plan to abolish independent sovereign national
governments.

Britain
is divided in 9 separate regions of the EU. The British will be shocked
to discover that EU laws take precedence over British laws and if they
have doubts they need to ask why the Queen and British PMs have signed
Treaties handing over power.

5.
Abolition of property rights – in 1974 at the Habitat Conference
private property was identified as a threat to peace and equality of the
environment.

Using
‘environmentalism’ as a ploy the quest was to take over earth’s
resources and place it under a central authority (UN) and issue licenses
for payment. Who owns the UN…the same banking families.

In
1987 the World Wilderness Congress was held organized by the
Rothschild’s World Conservation Bank which was set up the same year.

The World Bank is
likely to be replaced by the World Conservation Bank – the aim is to
break down national banks and assets will also be diverted to the new
bank which is why there is an aim to merge currencies into 2 or 3 major
currency groups and replace them with a new electronic currency which is
said to be called the ‘earth dollar’.

New
Zealand has apparently transferred over 34% of its land area into UN
Heritage Areas and Conservation Parks and these will all be owned by the
same banking families.

In
1992 the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil was
chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev responsible for dividing the Soviet Union
and Maurice Strong, the Rothschild London agent.

The topic was Agenda 21 which gave man rights superior to animals, fish, plants, trees and forests.

6.
The Patriots Act, the Human Rights Bill, the European Union
Constitution, the Security and Prosperity Partnership are all being
manipulated to place power in the control of a few hands.

Their plans are plotted annually through the Bilderberg Group and
their agents run numerous think tanks that steer Government policy
which are funded by the banksters who in real terms run the world.

Thus the 13 banking families that
run the world control the central banks of the world that print money,
give loans on interest and explains how national debt never decreases.

Economic crises, oil crisis (simply to increase prices), Arab Springs are all manufactured as are wars. There is a saying that all wars and bankers wars. The danger is when it comes to food as the control is being placed under Monsanto and GMOs.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com